L & T CHIYODA LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7161/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 716119914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HEENA DOSHI
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - A BENCH. , ! ! ! ! , ,, , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & VIVEK VAR MA,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO.7161/MUM/2011, # # # # $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 L & T CHIYODA LTD., TAXATION DEPARTMENT, L&T HOUSE, N.M.MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400001 VS DCIT 19 CIRCLE 2 (2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACL1818N ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) #)* #)* #)* #)* + + + + / ASSESSEE BY : M/S HEENA DOSHI , + / REVENUE BY : SHRI M.L.PERUMAL # # # # , ,, , *- *- *- *- / DATE OF HEARING : 29-01-2014 ./$ , *- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-01-2014 # # # # , 1961 , ,, , 254 )1( *0* *0* *0* *0* 1 1 1 1 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM # # # # : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.05.08.2011 OF THE CIT(A)-5 ,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY DI RECTION FOR DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 5,56,565/- NOT CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME AND THER EBY ERRED IN NOT GRANTING FULL DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 16,42,756/-. 2. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND , ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ENGINEE RING CONSULTANCY ORGANISATION,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.43,63,70,030/-.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF TH E ACT, ON 26.11.2008. 2.1. ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL ABOUT NOT GIVING ANY DIRECTIO N FOR DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENTAL OF RS. 5,56, 565/- NOT CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME.THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM IN THIS REGARD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,SO AO HAD NO CHANCE TO L OOK IN TO THE ISSUE.BUT,WHILE FILING THE APPEAL A SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY (FAA) TO GRANT THE SAID CLAIM. 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME,ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF RS.10,86,101/-BEING THE PRIN CIPAL AMOUNT WITHOUT CLAIMING THE FINANCE CHARGES THEREON OF RS. 5, 56,565/-,THAT IT WAS A PA RT OF THE INTEREST COMPONENT WHICH WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT,THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY W AS ENTITLED TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION OF RS.16.42 LACS TOWARDS PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTALS,THAT ALL THE FACTS WERE PART OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE CLAIM WAS BASED ON LEGAL INTERPRE TATION,THAT CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE FAA VIDE LETTER DATED 04.08.2011,THAT FAA DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE,THAT ON 21.1.2014 AN APPLICATION WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE FAA FOR PASSING A RECTIF ICATION ORDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT,THAT IN THE 2 ITA NO. 7161/MUM/2011 L & T CHIYODA LTD. APPLICATION THE FAA WAS REQUESTED TO PASS ORDER WIT H REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE REFERRED TO THE PAGE NO.26 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PB).D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT NO CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE AO. 2.3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AR HAS MERITS AND THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA TO DEC IDE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY PASSING A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.WE FIND THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT,IN THE CASE OF PRITHVI BROKERS(349ITR336) HAS HELD THAT FAA AND TH E TRIBUNAL CAN ADMIT NEW CLAIM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THOUGH THE AO CANNOT ADMIT A FRESH CLAIM,IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FILE A REVISED RETURN.EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ) *2 #)* 3 4 1*2 5* , * 67 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2014. 1 , ./$ 8 29 #- , 2014 / , 0 . SD/- SD/- ( ! ! ! ! / VIVEK VERMA) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 9# /DATE: 29 TH JANUARY,2014. SK 1 1 1 1 , ,, , '*! '*! '*! '*! :!$* :!$* :!$* :!$* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / %& 2. RESPONDENT / '(%& 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / ; < , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ; < 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / !=0 '*# , ,, , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 > (!* (!* (!* (!* '* '*'* '* //TRUE COPY// 1# / BY ORDER, ? / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI